On 9 Aug 2009, at 13:03 , Gerald Britton wrote:
> Your proposal certainly would lead to ambiguity in reading:
> _ = myfunc
> if _:_(_:_, ...)
>> The "if _:_" means:
>> if '_' evaluates to boolean true, call it
>> The second _:_ uses your new lambda construct. Could a compiler
> parse it?
> Probably. Can a human understand it? Maybe, with difficulty, but it
> would
> surely lead to hard-to-find errors.
And from the point of view of someone who'd really like a "better
lambda", the "implicit lambda" idea is pretty much worthless. As
others have said, it saves a few keystrokes and that's pretty much it.
If work is done towards a better/more useable lambda, it should at
least encompass full-blown anonymous expressions, not limit itself to
the current restricted lambda.